Article ID Journal Published Year Pages File Type
2715357 The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery 2014 4 Pages PDF
Abstract

Ankle arthrodesis is commonly used in the treatment of ankle arthritis. The present study compared mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) bone allografts and proximal tibia autografts as adjuncts in performing ankle arthrodesis. A total of 109 consecutive ankle fusions performed from 2002 to 2008 were evaluated retrospectively. Of the 109 fusions, 24 were excluded from the present study, leaving 85 patients who had undergone ankle arthrodesis. Of the 85 patients, 41 had received a proximal tibia autograft and 44, an MSC bone allograft. These 2 groups were reviewed and compared retrospectively at least 2 years postoperatively for the overall fusion rate, interval to radiographic fusion, and interval to clinical fusion. A modified and adjusted American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons ankle scale was used to measure patient satisfaction. The overall fusion rate was 84.1% in the MSC bone allograft group and 95.1% in the proximal tibia autograft group (p = .158). The corresponding mean intervals to radiographic fusion were 13.0 ± 2.5 weeks and 11.3 ± 2.8 weeks (p ≤ .001). The interval to clinical fusion was 13.1 ± 2.1 weeks and 11.0 ± 1.5 weeks (p ≤ .001) in the MSC bone allograft and proximal tibia autograft group, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found in the fusion rates between the MSC bone allograft and proximal tibia autograft groups. Also, no statistically significant difference was found between the preoperative and postoperative scores using a modified and adjusted American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons ankle scale between the 2 groups (p = .41 and p = .44, respectively). A statistically significant delay to radiographic and clinical fusion was present in the MSC bone allograft group compared with the proximal tibia autograft group; however, no difference was found in patient satisfaction.

Related Topics
Health Sciences Medicine and Dentistry Orthopedics, Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation
Authors
, , , , , ,